In a patriarchal society, a woman's worth has long been attached to her vagina and its "purity". This obsession has, for years, given way to harmful methods to maintain the so-called purity.&nbsp;

The latest fad in this problematic trend are 'yoni pearls' and as per a report by the Guardian, social media giants Meta, YouTube, and Google are profiting from posts promoting these useless and harmful 'health products' to women in Kenya.

<h2>Detox or toxic?</h2>

As per research by media collective Fambua, big tech firms are amplifying content promising unproven cures for infertility and herbs that can supposedly fight off cancer.

Fambua found Facebook pages selling these yoni pearls that as per them can "cleanse" the uterus and protect women from cervical cancer.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/third-drug-trafficking-convict-executed-in-singapore-in-less-than-a-week-621999">Third drug trafficking convict executed in Singapore in less than a week</a>

These yoni pearls are nothing but mesh wrapped herbs that are to be inserted via the vagina and which, as per claims, "detoxes past lovers from the womb space to free yourself and bring in more aligned lover or lovers."

<img alt="Yoni" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="47935fae-691d-4b71-9ba0-5b9fb19cc836" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/New%20wion%20%2866%29.png" />

Bogus cures like steaming the vagina — by sitting over a bowl of boiling water is also being promoted as a cure for endometriosis.&nbsp;

<h2>Big tech profiteering off hoaxes</h2>

As per the media collective's report, "Facebook’s own algorithms are often amplifying this content, and are letting ads for detox remedies target Kenyan users."

It further points out that all these so-called remedies and the supposed health benefits are not backed by any scientific evidence.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/science/move-over-blue-whale-scientists-discover-40-million-year-old-earths-biggest-animal-ever-621809">Not blue whale, this 40mn-year-old animal is largest ever to have lived on Earth</a>

"Google and YouTube are also part of this harmful system, profiting off ads for vaginal detox products despite evident health risks," claims the report.

<h2>'Asleep at the wheel'</h2>

"What is most alarming is how freely these adverts are available. People are not just able to sell things that are harmful, but to do so publicly and even pay for these adverts to go viral. There's an audacious impunity about it," says research lead Wanjiru Nguhi.

"Scam products are being delivered into the Kenyan marketplace while big tech is asleep at the wheel," remarks Kristina Wilfore, co-founder of ShePersisted, an initiative to address gendered disinformation.

<h2>Vaginal detox</h2>

It's not just ads on social media, these products have also been made popular by celebrities like Gwyneth Paltrow and Vera Sidika, the star of the Real Housewives of Nairobi.

As per The Guardian, these vaginal detox products sell for about 1,000 Kenyan shillings (or around $7). Medical experts caution against the use of these 'yoni pearls' and say that these are not only unnecessary but can also cause pain and infections.

Researchers say that these marketing fads are attempting to exploit pressures on women to conform to unattainable standards of sexuality and ill-informed notions of female hygiene.&nbsp;

Even as experts warn against such bogus products, Meta, as per the Guardian, said the vaginal detox content did not violate its policies.&nbsp;"We remove content that promotes harmful miracle cures for health issues when the treatments are widely deemed likely to directly contribute to the risk of serious injury or death," said the company in a statement.&nbsp;Google and YouTube, too, have similar misinformation policies, which require material to present danger of bodily harm or be life-threatening in order for it to be removed.

(With inputs from agencies) 
 
&nbsp;

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

In a patriarchal society, a woman's worth has long been attached to her vagina and its "purity". This obsession has, for years, given way to harmful methods to maintain the so-called purity.

In a patriarchal society, a woman's worth has long been attached to her vagina and its "purity". This obsession has, for years, given way to harmful methods to maintain the so-called purity. The latest fad in this problematic trend are 'yoni pearls' and as per a report by the Guardian, social media giants Meta, YouTube, and Google are profiting from posts promoting these useless and harmful 'health products' to women in Kenya. Detox or toxic? As per research by media collective Fambua, big tech firms are amplifying content promising unproven cures for infertility and herbs that can supposedly fight off cancer. Fambua found Facebook pages selling these yoni pearls that as per them can "cleanse" the uterus and protect women from cervical cancer. Also read | Third drug trafficking convict executed in Singapore in less than a week These yoni pearls are nothing but mesh wrapped herbs that are to be inserted via the vagina and which, as per claims, "detoxes past lovers from the womb space to free yourself and bring in more aligned lover or lovers." Bogus cures like steaming the vagina — by sitting over a bowl of boiling water is also being promoted as a cure for endometriosis. Big tech profiteering off hoaxes As per the media collective's report, "Facebook’s own algorithms are often amplifying this content, and are letting ads for detox remedies target Kenyan users." It further points out that all these so-called remedies and the supposed health benefits are not backed by any scientific evidence. Also read | Not blue whale, this 40mn-year-old animal is largest ever to have lived on Earth "Google and YouTube are also part of this harmful system, profiting off ads for vaginal detox products despite evident health risks," claims the report. 'Asleep at the wheel' "What is most alarming is how freely these adverts are available. People are not just able to sell things that are harmful, but to do so publicly and even pay for these adverts to go viral. There's an audacious impunity about it," says research lead Wanjiru Nguhi. "Scam products are being delivered into the Kenyan marketplace while big tech is asleep at the wheel," remarks Kristina Wilfore, co-founder of ShePersisted, an initiative to address gendered disinformation. Vaginal detox It's not just ads on social media, these products have also been made popular by celebrities like Gwyneth Paltrow and Vera Sidika, the star of the Real Housewives of Nairobi. As per The Guardian, these vaginal detox products sell for about 1,000 Kenyan shillings (or around $7). Medical experts caution against the use of these 'yoni pearls' and say that these are not only unnecessary but can also cause pain and infections. Researchers say that these marketing fads are attempting to exploit pressures on women to conform to unattainable standards of sexuality and ill-informed notions of female hygiene. Even as experts warn against such bogus products, Meta, as per the Guardian, said the vaginal detox content did not violate its policies. "We remove content that promotes harmful miracle cures for health issues when the treatments are widely deemed likely to directly contribute to the risk of serious injury or death," said the company in a statement. Google and YouTube, too, have similar misinformation policies, which require material to present danger of bodily harm or be life-threatening in order for it to be removed. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Facebook, Google, YouTube pushing harmful 'misogynistic' trends like 'yoni pearls' to Kenyan women

Trouble is looming large on Apple and Google as British competition watchdog, following a survey into the mobile ecosystems, launched a probe Tuesday to investigate whether these tech giants follow anti-competitive behaviour. With this, it is reportedly possible that both the tech giants could loose&nbsp;their stronghold in the mobile space.&nbsp;

The British watchdog, Competition and Markets Authority, made this decision after concluding the findings of a 356-page report into competition for mobile operating systems and apps. In a scathing attack on the tech giants, the report said that the duo “hold all the cards” in mobile ecosystems. CMA said that this helps Apple and Google to exercise a "stranglehold" over operating systems, app stores and web browsers, said a report in Politico.&nbsp;

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/google-to-lay-off-at-least-10000-poor-performing-employees-report-536482">Google to lay off at least 10,000 ‘poor performing’ employees in 2023: Report</a>

According to CMA research, Apple's Safari or Google's Chrome-powered mobile browsers accounted for 97 per cent of all UK mobile web surfing in 2021. The CMA study's respondents also emphasised how Apple limits cloud gaming through its App Store.

Sarah Cardell, interim chief executive of the CMA, said Tuesday that many UK businesses and web developers say they feel that they are being held back by restrictions set by Apple and Google. “We plan to investigate whether the concerns we have heard are justified and, if so, identify steps to improve competition," she added.&nbsp;

ALSO READ |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/social-media-videos-show-chaotic-scenes-at-foxconns-zhengzhou-plant-536634">Chaos erupt at Foxconn's iPhone factory in China as workers fight Covid curbs</a>

In a reaction to this, Apple said that it would continue to engage constructively with CMA to explain how its approach is based on a culture where competition and choice thrives. However, Google have not yet made any comments.&nbsp;

What after the investigation concludes?&nbsp;

The in-depth market investigation is required to be finished within 18 months by CMA. In case, the study makes a conclusion that there is an involvement of anti-competitive behaviour in the market, CMA can impose remedies on firms and make recommendations to the government on regulation, reported Politico.

WATCH |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/wion-fineprint-china-2022-gold-purchase-highest-since-1967-536559">WION Fineprint | China: 2022 gold purchase highest since 1967</a>

This comes in the backdrop of UK Chancellor Jeremy Hunt's announcement last Thursday where he promised that government would present regulations to combat Big Tech's anti-competitive abuses. He said that it will be done before May next year with the help of Digital Markets Competition and Consumers Bill. The watchdog CMA’s Cardell said that the new protocols will address “sorts of issues” raised in Apple and Google’s dominance over mobile ecosystems. As per media reports, these new regulatory powers could be received by CMA’s Digital Markets Unit as early as October next year.&nbsp;

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

&nbsp;

Trouble is looming large on Apple and Google as British competition watchdog, following a survey into the mobile ecosystems, launched a probe Tuesday to investigate whether these tech giants follow anti-competitive behaviour.

Trouble is looming large on Apple and Google as British competition watchdog, following a survey into the mobile ecosystems, launched a probe Tuesday to investigate whether these tech giants follow anti-competitive behaviour. With this, it is reportedly possible that both the tech giants could loose their stronghold in the mobile space. The British watchdog, Competition and Markets Authority, made this decision after concluding the findings of a 356-page report into competition for mobile operating systems and apps. In a scathing attack on the tech giants, the report said that the duo “hold all the cards” in mobile ecosystems. CMA said that this helps Apple and Google to exercise a "stranglehold" over operating systems, app stores and web browsers, said a report in Politico. ALSO READ | Google to lay off at least 10,000 ‘poor performing’ employees in 2023: Report According to CMA research, Apple's Safari or Google's Chrome-powered mobile browsers accounted for 97 per cent of all UK mobile web surfing in 2021. The CMA study's respondents also emphasised how Apple limits cloud gaming through its App Store. Sarah Cardell, interim chief executive of the CMA, said Tuesday that many UK businesses and web developers say they feel that they are being held back by restrictions set by Apple and Google. “We plan to investigate whether the concerns we have heard are justified and, if so, identify steps to improve competition," she added. ALSO READ | Chaos erupt at Foxconn's iPhone factory in China as workers fight Covid curbs In a reaction to this, Apple said that it would continue to engage constructively with CMA to explain how its approach is based on a culture where competition and choice thrives. However, Google have not yet made any comments. What after the investigation concludes? The in-depth market investigation is required to be finished within 18 months by CMA. In case, the study makes a conclusion that there is an involvement of anti-competitive behaviour in the market, CMA can impose remedies on firms and make recommendations to the government on regulation, reported Politico. WATCH | WION Fineprint | China: 2022 gold purchase highest since 1967 This comes in the backdrop of UK Chancellor Jeremy Hunt's announcement last Thursday where he promised that government would present regulations to combat Big Tech's anti-competitive abuses. He said that it will be done before May next year with the help of Digital Markets Competition and Consumers Bill. The watchdog CMA’s Cardell said that the new protocols will address “sorts of issues” raised in Apple and Google’s dominance over mobile ecosystems. As per media reports, these new regulatory powers could be received by CMA’s Digital Markets Unit as early as October next year. WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

UK watchdog launches probe into Apple and Google mobile dominance, big techs staring at trouble?

US Senators put executives from YouTube, TikTok, and Snapchat on the defensive, questioning them about how they are ensuring young users’ safety on their platforms.

US lawmakers questions YouTube, Snapchat and TikTok on kids’ online safety

The&nbsp;House of Representatives Judiciary Committee approved five antitrust bills, three of them aimed at Big Tech, and will take up the last and most aggressive proposed legislation on Thursday, a bill that could require platforms to sell off lines of business.

In a marathon session that adjourned in the early morning hours, House Judiciary Committee members approved five of six bills that take aim at the business practices of Google, Apple, Amazon, and Facebook.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/apple-google-come-under-fire-at-senate-antitrust-hearing-379173/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

One of the measures would ban online platforms from favoring their own products and services -- responding to complaints that dominant tech firms discriminate against, and crush rivals.

In a session marked by numerous attempts to amend or water down the legislation, the committee also approved an "interoperability" requirement for platforms that would make it easier for users to switch services while keeping their data, and a separate bill banning takeovers of rivals by large tech firms.

When the committee resumes work, it will take up what some call the "break 'em up" bill. This would require a platform, again like Amazon, to sell any business that competes with other businesses using its platform.

There has been vociferous opposition to that bill and others, including from the US&nbsp;Chamber of Commerce, Amazon, Apple Inc, Facebook Inc, and Alphabet Inc's Google.

Also read|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/in-focus-big-tech-firms-facing-antitrust-investigations-across-world-393413" hreflang="en">In focus: Big Tech firms facing antitrust investigations across world</a>

Judiciary Committee chairman Jerry Nadler said the package of bills is aimed at "a small set of online platforms (which) have become gatekeepers for much of the digital marketplace" and argued that "in many cases, businesses and consumers no longer have meaningful alternatives online."

The bills head to the full House of Representatives where a contentious debate is expected, amid fierce opposition from the tech sector and allies. Any bills would need passage of both the House and Senate and the president's signature.

The legislation would restrict how online platforms operate, and potentially set the stage for a breakup by limiting their ability to offer services on the marketplaces they run.

Republican Representative Darrell Issa noted that the committee was considering "radical" reforms worthy of weeks of hearings rather than one marathon session.

"I believe many of these bills are going to die in the Senate if they ever get out of the House," Issa said.

Clash points included whether it is right to target laws at four big tech companies and whether government agencies will hobble them instead of letting them adapt to the competition.

Republican Representative Ken Buck, a supporter of the overhaul, said the legislation "represents a scalpel, not a chainsaw, to deal with the most important aspects of antitrust reform," in dealing with "these monopolists (who) routinely use their gatekeeper power to crush competitors, harm innovation and destroy the free market."

But Republican Jim Jordan criticized the effort, renewing his argument that Big Tech firms suppress conservative voices.

"These bills don't fix that problem -- &nbsp;they make it worse," Jordan said. "They don't break up Big Tech. They don't stop censorship."

Steve Chabot, another Republican, called the initiative "an effort for big government to take over Big Tech."

Tech firms and others warned of negative consequences for popular services people rely on, potentially forcing Apple to remove its messaging apps from the iPhone or Google to stop displaying results from YouTube or Maps.

Apple released a report arguing that one likely impact -- opening up the iPhone to apps from outside platforms -- could create security and privacy risks for users.

Forcing Apple to allow "sideloading" of apps would mean "malicious actors would take advantage of the opportunity by devoting more resources to develop sophisticated attacks targeting iOS users," the report said.

Amazon vice president Brian Huseman likewise warned of "significant negative effects," both for sellers and consumers using the e-commerce platform, and reduced-price competition.

"It will be much harder for these third-party sellers to create awareness for their business," Huseman said.&nbsp;

"Removing the selection of these sellers from Amazon's store would also create less price competition for products, and likely end up increasing prices for consumers. The committee is moving unnecessarily fast in pushing these bills forward."

(With inputs from agencies)

The House of Representatives Judiciary Committee approved five antitrust bills, three of them aimed at Big Tech, and will take up the last and most aggressive proposed legislation on Thursday, a bill that could require platforms to sell off lines of business.

The House of Representatives Judiciary Committee approved five antitrust bills, three of them aimed at Big Tech, and will take up the last and most aggressive proposed legislation on Thursday, a bill that could require platforms to sell off lines of business. In a marathon session that adjourned in the early morning hours, House Judiciary Committee members approved five of six bills that take aim at the business practices of Google, Apple, Amazon, and Facebook. One of the measures would ban online platforms from favoring their own products and services -- responding to complaints that dominant tech firms discriminate against, and crush rivals. In a session marked by numerous attempts to amend or water down the legislation, the committee also approved an "interoperability" requirement for platforms that would make it easier for users to switch services while keeping their data, and a separate bill banning takeovers of rivals by large tech firms. When the committee resumes work, it will take up what some call the "break 'em up" bill. This would require a platform, again like Amazon, to sell any business that competes with other businesses using its platform. There has been vociferous opposition to that bill and others, including from the US Chamber of Commerce, Amazon, Apple Inc, Facebook Inc, and Alphabet Inc's Google. Also read| In focus: Big Tech firms facing antitrust investigations across world Judiciary Committee chairman Jerry Nadler said the package of bills is aimed at "a small set of online platforms (which) have become gatekeepers for much of the digital marketplace" and argued that "in many cases, businesses and consumers no longer have meaningful alternatives online." The bills head to the full House of Representatives where a contentious debate is expected, amid fierce opposition from the tech sector and allies. Any bills would need passage of both the House and Senate and the president's signature. The legislation would restrict how online platforms operate, and potentially set the stage for a breakup by limiting their ability to offer services on the marketplaces they run. Republican Representative Darrell Issa noted that the committee was considering "radical" reforms worthy of weeks of hearings rather than one marathon session. "I believe many of these bills are going to die in the Senate if they ever get out of the House," Issa said. Clash points included whether it is right to target laws at four big tech companies and whether government agencies will hobble them instead of letting them adapt to the competition. Republican Representative Ken Buck, a supporter of the overhaul, said the legislation "represents a scalpel, not a chainsaw, to deal with the most important aspects of antitrust reform," in dealing with "these monopolists (who) routinely use their gatekeeper power to crush competitors, harm innovation and destroy the free market." But Republican Jim Jordan criticized the effort, renewing his argument that Big Tech firms suppress conservative voices. "These bills don't fix that problem -- they make it worse," Jordan said. "They don't break up Big Tech. They don't stop censorship." Steve Chabot, another Republican, called the initiative "an effort for big government to take over Big Tech." Tech firms and others warned of negative consequences for popular services people rely on, potentially forcing Apple to remove its messaging apps from the iPhone or Google to stop displaying results from YouTube or Maps. Apple released a report arguing that one likely impact -- opening up the iPhone to apps from outside platforms -- could create security and privacy risks for users. Forcing Apple to allow "sideloading" of apps would mean "malicious actors would take advantage of the opportunity by devoting more resources to develop sophisticated attacks targeting iOS users," the report said. Amazon vice president Brian Huseman likewise warned of "significant negative effects," both for sellers and consumers using the e-commerce platform, and reduced-price competition. "It will be much harder for these third-party sellers to create awareness for their business," Huseman said. "Removing the selection of these sellers from Amazon's store would also create less price competition for products, and likely end up increasing prices for consumers. The committee is moving unnecessarily fast in pushing these bills forward." (With inputs from agencies)

'Break them up': US House panel approves five antitrust bills aimed at Big Tech

Tech companies both large and small&nbsp;have found themselves dependent on the arbitrary whim of Big Tech, one algorithm tweak away from ruin.

The&nbsp;decisions made by tech giants are largely unaccountable, opaque, and result in sweeping consequences, the dominant platforms effectively serve as private regulators.

To break up their monopoly, regulatory battles have broken out across the world to curb the rising influence and diminishing responsibility of these tech giants.

Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Amazon&nbsp;and Apple are a part of the&nbsp;'hit list'&nbsp;that will be facing new and tougher rules aimed at curbing their dominant market position and its misuse.

They are facing the biggest threat from&nbsp;the European Union and the United States Congress, which are introducing&nbsp;rules that will force the companies to share data with rivals and be more transparent on how they gather information.

Democrats from a US&nbsp;House of Representatives subcommittee issued a report&nbsp;detailing tactics they said four of the biggest technology companies used to gain dominant positioning in online search, advertising, social networking shopping, and other businesses.

AMAZON 
Amazon.com Inc sells its own products as well as goods from independent merchants on a single platform. The Congressional report alleged that Amazon has "monopoly power" over many of these merchants, which "do not have a viable alternative to Amazon for reaching online consumers."

US&nbsp;Senator Amy Klobuchar said that the company&nbsp;needs to offer more details about how its&nbsp;smart-home devices and virtual assistants will support competition and user privacy.

The&nbsp;House Judiciary Committee is all set&nbsp;take up a package of six antitrust bills on Wednesday.

Before the beginning of the session,&nbsp;Amazon's Brian Huseman, vice president of public policy, said&nbsp;the company believed that the bills "would have significant negative effects on the hundreds of thousands of American small- and medium-sized businesses that sell in our store, and tens of millions of consumers who buy products from&nbsp;Amazon."

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) launched an investigation in January last year after a complaint accused Flipkart and&nbsp;Amazon&nbsp;of promoting select sellers on their e-commerce platforms and using deep discounts to stifle competition.

Amazon was accused of favoring big sellers on its India platform – and used them to maneuver around rules meant to protect the country's small retailers from getting crushed by e-commerce giants.

India proposed banning flash sales on e-commerce websites and said their affiliate entities should not be listed as sellers on their platforms, in a proposed tightening of rules that could hit Amazon and Flipkart, owned by Walmart.

APPLE 
Apple has a monopoly on distributing software onto the iPhone. Apple used that monopoly power to charge above-market prices to developers in the form of a 30 per cent&nbsp;commission on App Store sales, to exclude rival apps and services, and to misappropriate data from developers and use it to create competing services and features.

A former App Store employee told lawmakers that the App Store costs Apple merely an estimated $100 million per year to run, while it generates billions of dollars in revenue.

Meanwhile, Apple boss Tim Cook took aim on Wednesday at proposed European rules aimed at curbing the power of US tech giants, saying they could pose security and privacy risks to iPhones.

Cook, in his first public comments about the Digital Markets Act (DMA) proposed by EU antitrust chief Margrethe Vestager, said parts of it were good but others were not.

He said he feared the draft rules would lead to more installing of apps that do not come via Apple's App Store, or "side-loading".

"You take an example here where I don't think it's in the best interest (of the user): the current DMA language that is being discussed would force side-loading on the iPhone," the Apple CEO, speaking remotely, said at VivaTech, France´s biggest tech conference.

"And so this would be an ultimate way of getting apps onto the iPhone," he said. "It would destroy the security of the iPhone, and a lot of the privacy initiatives that we've built into the App Store or the privacy intrusion labels and app-tracking transparency," he added.

Earlier this month, EU lawmaker Andreas Schwab, who is leading the European Parliament scrutiny of the draft rules, said he wanted to beef up the legislation and narrow its scope to just big companies like Google Amazon, Apple, and Facebook.

Apple would take part in the debate and try to find a way forward, Cook said.

FACEBOOK 
Facebook holds monopoly power in the “social networking” market, which it distinguished from the market for more content-centric social media products like YouTube and TikTok.

Facebook secured its dominance in that highly concentrated market by identifying nascent rivals and copying, acquiring or killing them off before they could mature into competitive threats, the US Congressional report said.

The company’s two biggest acquisitions, of Instagram and WhatsApp, fit that pattern. The US report&nbsp;also accused Facebook of selectively enforcing its platform policies to defuse a threat from video-sharing app Vine, which Twitter shut down in 2016.

Regulatory experts stopped short of recommending a breakup of Facebook, but propose boosting the budgets of antitrust enforcers and allowing them more leeway to stop companies from purchasing would-be rivals.

That could strengthen regulators’ hands in current investigations into Facebook’s alleged anti-competitive practices and make future transactions trickier.

GOOGLE 
Google has used restrictive customer and partner contracts and other means to ensure its own services are favored over those of competitors in search, phone and tablet software, advertising technology, and mapping technology.

For instance, the House Judiciary Committee&nbsp;found in internal Google documents that top executives such as now-Chief Executive Sundar Pichai approved stiff-arming partners to make sure Google search, in the company’s own words, was “front and centre” on mobile devices.

When one hardware manufacturer in 2014 complained about its devices being overloaded with required Google apps, the search giant blamed it for not making gadgets with more memory.

The US Congress is planning to pass nondiscrimination and bargaining laws requiring big service providers such as Google to provide fair access to their systems.

Such a rule could give a leg-up to device makers, ad tech companies, and app developers that want to shift from Google tools.

Also in the US, reports emerged that a group of state attorneys general may file a lawsuit against Alphabet Inc's&nbsp;Google&nbsp;as early as next week, accusing the search and advertising giant of violating antitrust law in running Google Play, its mobile app store.

The European Commission, meanwhile, is&nbsp;investigating whether&nbsp;Google&nbsp;distorts competition by restricting third party access to user data for advertising purposes on websites and apps, while reserving such data for its own use.

"We are concerned that&nbsp;Google&nbsp;has made it harder for rival online advertising services to compete in the so-called ad tech stack," European Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager said in a statement.

YOUTUBE

About 1.6 million views on YouTube out of every 1 billion are of a video that violates its content policies, about even a year ago, the streaming service owned by Alphabet Inc’s Google said in a new disclosure.

The “violative view rate” (VVR) has dropped over 70 per cent&nbsp;since it was first tracked in the fourth quarter of 2017, YouTube said, and demonstrates its progress in blocking hate speech and other videos it considers dangerous before they go viral.

Critics have said inadequate policing by YouTube and other social media companies enables false and hateful rhetoric to spread, fomenting deadly violence such as the US&nbsp;Capitol attack in January.

YouTube’s VVR was steady over the last six quarters measured, according to the new data, which run through 2020.

Jennifer O’Connor, a product director at YouTube, told reporters that she hoped releasing the estimate each quarter “continues to hold us accountable.”

She said the rate, like other enforcement data YouTube releases, could fluctuate as its technology, rules and users evolve. For instance, YouTube removed nearly 171,000 channels for hate speech in the fourth quarter, three times more than the preceding period. It attributed the jump to improved detection technology.

The VVR comprises all policy violations and is derived from a sampling of videos. It does not include comments on videos.

Tech companies both large and small have found themselves dependent on the arbitrary whim of Big Tech, one algorithm tweak away from ruin. The decisions made by tech giants are largely unaccountable, opaque, and result in sweeping consequences, the dominant platforms effectively serve as private regulators.

Tech companies both large and small have found themselves dependent on the arbitrary whim of Big Tech, one algorithm tweak away from ruin. The decisions made by tech giants are largely unaccountable, opaque, and result in sweeping consequences, the dominant platforms effectively serve as private regulators. To break up their monopoly, regulatory battles have broken out across the world to curb the rising influence and diminishing responsibility of these tech giants. Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Amazon and Apple are a part of the 'hit list' that will be facing new and tougher rules aimed at curbing their dominant market position and its misuse. They are facing the biggest threat from the European Union and the United States Congress, which are introducing rules that will force the companies to share data with rivals and be more transparent on how they gather information. Democrats from a US House of Representatives subcommittee issued a report detailing tactics they said four of the biggest technology companies used to gain dominant positioning in online search, advertising, social networking shopping, and other businesses. AMAZON Amazon.com Inc sells its own products as well as goods from independent merchants on a single platform. The Congressional report alleged that Amazon has "monopoly power" over many of these merchants, which "do not have a viable alternative to Amazon for reaching online consumers." US Senator Amy Klobuchar said that the company needs to offer more details about how its smart-home devices and virtual assistants will support competition and user privacy. The House Judiciary Committee is all set take up a package of six antitrust bills on Wednesday. Before the beginning of the session, Amazon's Brian Huseman, vice president of public policy, said the company believed that the bills "would have significant negative effects on the hundreds of thousands of American small- and medium-sized businesses that sell in our store, and tens of millions of consumers who buy products from Amazon." The Competition Commission of India (CCI) launched an investigation in January last year after a complaint accused Flipkart and Amazon of promoting select sellers on their e-commerce platforms and using deep discounts to stifle competition. Amazon was accused of favoring big sellers on its India platform – and used them to maneuver around rules meant to protect the country's small retailers from getting crushed by e-commerce giants. India proposed banning flash sales on e-commerce websites and said their affiliate entities should not be listed as sellers on their platforms, in a proposed tightening of rules that could hit Amazon and Flipkart, owned by Walmart. APPLE Apple has a monopoly on distributing software onto the iPhone. Apple used that monopoly power to charge above-market prices to developers in the form of a 30 per cent commission on App Store sales, to exclude rival apps and services, and to misappropriate data from developers and use it to create competing services and features. A former App Store employee told lawmakers that the App Store costs Apple merely an estimated $100 million per year to run, while it generates billions of dollars in revenue. Meanwhile, Apple boss Tim Cook took aim on Wednesday at proposed European rules aimed at curbing the power of US tech giants, saying they could pose security and privacy risks to iPhones. Cook, in his first public comments about the Digital Markets Act (DMA) proposed by EU antitrust chief Margrethe Vestager, said parts of it were good but others were not. He said he feared the draft rules would lead to more installing of apps that do not come via Apple's App Store, or "side-loading". "You take an example here where I don't think it's in the best interest (of the user): the current DMA language that is being discussed would force side-loading on the iPhone," the Apple CEO, speaking remotely, said at VivaTech, France´s biggest tech conference. "And so this would be an ultimate way of getting apps onto the iPhone," he said. "It would destroy the security of the iPhone, and a lot of the privacy initiatives that we've built into the App Store or the privacy intrusion labels and app-tracking transparency," he added. Earlier this month, EU lawmaker Andreas Schwab, who is leading the European Parliament scrutiny of the draft rules, said he wanted to beef up the legislation and narrow its scope to just big companies like Google Amazon, Apple, and Facebook. Apple would take part in the debate and try to find a way forward, Cook said. FACEBOOK Facebook holds monopoly power in the “social networking” market, which it distinguished from the market for more content-centric social media products like YouTube and TikTok. Facebook secured its dominance in that highly concentrated market by identifying nascent rivals and copying, acquiring or killing them off before they could mature into competitive threats, the US Congressional report said. The company’s two biggest acquisitions, of Instagram and WhatsApp, fit that pattern. The US report also accused Facebook of selectively enforcing its platform policies to defuse a threat from video-sharing app Vine, which Twitter shut down in 2016. Regulatory experts stopped short of recommending a breakup of Facebook, but propose boosting the budgets of antitrust enforcers and allowing them more leeway to stop companies from purchasing would-be rivals. That could strengthen regulators’ hands in current investigations into Facebook’s alleged anti-competitive practices and make future transactions trickier. GOOGLE Google has used restrictive customer and partner contracts and other means to ensure its own services are favored over those of competitors in search, phone and tablet software, advertising technology, and mapping technology. For instance, the House Judiciary Committee found in internal Google documents that top executives such as now-Chief Executive Sundar Pichai approved stiff-arming partners to make sure Google search, in the company’s own words, was “front and centre” on mobile devices. When one hardware manufacturer in 2014 complained about its devices being overloaded with required Google apps, the search giant blamed it for not making gadgets with more memory. The US Congress is planning to pass nondiscrimination and bargaining laws requiring big service providers such as Google to provide fair access to their systems. Such a rule could give a leg-up to device makers, ad tech companies, and app developers that want to shift from Google tools. Also in the US, reports emerged that a group of state attorneys general may file a lawsuit against Alphabet Inc's Google as early as next week, accusing the search and advertising giant of violating antitrust law in running Google Play, its mobile app store. The European Commission, meanwhile, is investigating whether Google distorts competition by restricting third party access to user data for advertising purposes on websites and apps, while reserving such data for its own use. "We are concerned that Google has made it harder for rival online advertising services to compete in the so-called ad tech stack," European Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager said in a statement. YOUTUBE About 1.6 million views on YouTube out of every 1 billion are of a video that violates its content policies, about even a year ago, the streaming service owned by Alphabet Inc’s Google said in a new disclosure. The “violative view rate” (VVR) has dropped over 70 per cent since it was first tracked in the fourth quarter of 2017, YouTube said, and demonstrates its progress in blocking hate speech and other videos it considers dangerous before they go viral. Critics have said inadequate policing by YouTube and other social media companies enables false and hateful rhetoric to spread, fomenting deadly violence such as the US Capitol attack in January. YouTube’s VVR was steady over the last six quarters measured, according to the new data, which run through 2020. Jennifer O’Connor, a product director at YouTube, told reporters that she hoped releasing the estimate each quarter “continues to hold us accountable.” She said the rate, like other enforcement data YouTube releases, could fluctuate as its technology, rules and users evolve. For instance, YouTube removed nearly 171,000 channels for hate speech in the fourth quarter, three times more than the preceding period. It attributed the jump to improved detection technology. The VVR comprises all policy violations and is derived from a sampling of videos. It does not include comments on videos.

In focus: Big Tech firms facing antitrust investigations across world

A report by Wall Street Journal based on US Campaign Finance Records has said that US President Joe Biden's campaign received at least USD 15.1 million from employees of big tech firms in donations. The report has said that the companies include Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple and Facebook. This made up biggest source of donations to Democrats among corporate employees.

Biden campaign received USD 15 million in donations from big tech employees: Report

There are&nbsp;only 22 countries in the world&nbsp;the British have not invaded.&nbsp;India too&nbsp;was a British colony between 1858 and 1947.

In 2021,&nbsp;the world is staring at another colonial threat, this time&nbsp;it's from big tech. Many lawmakers in recent years have called for laws and regulations to rein in dominant&nbsp;tech&nbsp;companies such as Facebook Inc, Twitter Inc, Alphabet Inc's Google, Amazon.com Inc and Apple Inc.

The big tech&nbsp;has become the&nbsp;new East India Company as it&nbsp;colonising the world.

The East India Company began establishing trading posts in India in the year 1600.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-is-big-tech-the-new-east-india-company-364645/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

In 1612, it defeated the Portuguese. Soon it went after local traders&nbsp;and killed their business.

Amazon launched its operations in India in 2013. It began killing brick and mortar businesses due to which some of them moved online but they were quashed by predatory pricing and prefered sellers.

When India announced an investigation into Amazon in January 2020, the company challenged the probe.

Back in the 17th century- the British East India Company had established a monopoly in India. Today, companies like Amazon are doing the same.

Facebook follows the same strategy to kill competitors, establish a monopoly. It&nbsp;has made at least 81 acquisitions since 2005.

When Instagram threatened Facebook's popularity,&nbsp;it was acquired in 2012. Then Facebook started copying&nbsp;Snapchat's features.&nbsp;It did everything to ensure Instagram does not have any major competitor.

Similarly, when&nbsp;WhatsApp&nbsp;posed a challenge,&nbsp;Facebook bought it as well&nbsp;in 2014.

Tech giants regularly acquire start-ups to kill innovation and&nbsp;drain small players by hiring or&nbsp;poaching their talent. Many acquisitions never even make it to the headlines as&nbsp;Google has colonised the online search space.

As per the East India company's playbook, it&nbsp;went after policies after establishing a monopoly.

By the 18th century, the trading company became involved in politics. Its aim was to maintain its trading privilege and expand its wings.

Today, tech giants are doing the same. In the US&nbsp;Amazon is trying to lobby against all its competitors by&nbsp;bidding for billions of dollars worth of government contracts.

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos has embedded himself in Washington. His $23 million mansion sits not too far from the White House.

In 2019, Amazon spent over $8.1 million on lobbying. This is more than any tech company.

A Bloomberg report claims- amazon has increased its spending on lobbying by over 460 per cent since 2012.

Amazon reportedly paid zero federal tax on its profits in the US&nbsp;In 2018. This was for the second year in a row.

Amazon&nbsp;has been facing increasing scrutiny by Indian regulators, and the latest report provided an inside look at the cat-and-mouse game&nbsp;Amazon&nbsp;has played with India's government, adjusting its corporate structures each time the government imposed new restrictions aimed at protecting small traders.

After the 1757 battle of Plassey- the East India company became very powerful.&nbsp;In 1764, it won the battle of Buxar.&nbsp;Soon it was granted the Diwani of Bengal.&nbsp;

Facebook&nbsp;wiped out pages from Australian state governments and charities as well as from domestic and international news organisations, three days before the launch of a nationwide COVID-19 vaccination programme.

It's dictating terms and bullying and blackmailing elected lawmakers. The company has blocked news and&nbsp;is controlling the reach of the press. Big tech has become that powerful!

Facebook has a history of abusing legal gaps. It came under limelight for the privacy concerns of WhatsApp policies recently.

The only way to ensure that big tech&nbsp;does not re-inflict the damage done by the East India Company is to legislate.

India must regulate big tech, protect home companies and the country's&nbsp;interests offline.

India must learn from its history and ensure that the country isn't left vulnerable to digital colonisation by big tech as it was to British colonisation- by the East India Company.

If in the 1600s India had the spices and raw materials. Today,&nbsp;India has the world's largest online market outside China.

In the 1600s- the Portuguese and the British East India company were betting on India. Today- it's the silicon valley giants.

India must ensure that this time that it emerges as the only winner.

There are only 22 countries in the world the British have not invaded. India too was a British colony between 1858 and 1947. In 2021, the world is staring at another colonial threat, this time it's from big tech.

There are only 22 countries in the world the British have not invaded. India too was a British colony between 1858 and 1947. In 2021, the world is staring at another colonial threat, this time it's from big tech. Many lawmakers in recent years have called for laws and regulations to rein in dominant tech companies such as Facebook Inc, Twitter Inc, Alphabet Inc's Google, Amazon.com Inc and Apple Inc. The big tech has become the new East India Company as it colonising the world. The East India Company began establishing trading posts in India in the year 1600. × In 1612, it defeated the Portuguese. Soon it went after local traders and killed their business. Amazon launched its operations in India in 2013. It began killing brick and mortar businesses due to which some of them moved online but they were quashed by predatory pricing and prefered sellers. When India announced an investigation into Amazon in January 2020, the company challenged the probe. Back in the 17th century- the British East India Company had established a monopoly in India. Today, companies like Amazon are doing the same. Facebook follows the same strategy to kill competitors, establish a monopoly. It has made at least 81 acquisitions since 2005. When Instagram threatened Facebook's popularity, it was acquired in 2012. Then Facebook started copying Snapchat's features. It did everything to ensure Instagram does not have any major competitor. Similarly, when WhatsApp posed a challenge, Facebook bought it as well in 2014. Tech giants regularly acquire start-ups to kill innovation and drain small players by hiring or poaching their talent. Many acquisitions never even make it to the headlines as Google has colonised the online search space. As per the East India company's playbook, it went after policies after establishing a monopoly. By the 18th century, the trading company became involved in politics. Its aim was to maintain its trading privilege and expand its wings. Today, tech giants are doing the same. In the US Amazon is trying to lobby against all its competitors by bidding for billions of dollars worth of government contracts. Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos has embedded himself in Washington. His $23 million mansion sits not too far from the White House. In 2019, Amazon spent over $8.1 million on lobbying. This is more than any tech company. A Bloomberg report claims- amazon has increased its spending on lobbying by over 460 per cent since 2012. Amazon reportedly paid zero federal tax on its profits in the US In 2018. This was for the second year in a row. Amazon has been facing increasing scrutiny by Indian regulators, and the latest report provided an inside look at the cat-and-mouse game Amazon has played with India's government, adjusting its corporate structures each time the government imposed new restrictions aimed at protecting small traders. After the 1757 battle of Plassey- the East India company became very powerful. In 1764, it won the battle of Buxar. Soon it was granted the Diwani of Bengal. Facebook wiped out pages from Australian state governments and charities as well as from domestic and international news organisations, three days before the launch of a nationwide COVID-19 vaccination programme. It's dictating terms and bullying and blackmailing elected lawmakers. The company has blocked news and is controlling the reach of the press. Big tech has become that powerful! Facebook has a history of abusing legal gaps. It came under limelight for the privacy concerns of WhatsApp policies recently. The only way to ensure that big tech does not re-inflict the damage done by the East India Company is to legislate. India must regulate big tech, protect home companies and the country's interests offline. India must learn from its history and ensure that the country isn't left vulnerable to digital colonisation by big tech as it was to British colonisation- by the East India Company. If in the 1600s India had the spices and raw materials. Today, India has the world's largest online market outside China. In the 1600s- the Portuguese and the British East India company were betting on India. Today- it's the silicon valley giants. India must ensure that this time that it emerges as the only winner.

'Digital colonialism': Has big tech become the new East India Company

In the past week, “Big Tech” - applications like Facebook, Google, Instagram, Twitter, and others have taken unprecedented decisions, like booting&nbsp;US President Trump out of their platforms. By next week, Donald Trump is also slated to leave the presidential office, but for now he remains the world’s most powerful leader.

12 technology companies have either banned Donald Trump, or restricted him in the aftermath of the violence which led to five deaths in the US Capitol last week.

Donald Trump can no longer update his status on Facebook, or Tweet. He is also banned from Google, Instagram, Snapchat, YouTube, and Twitch. In addition, TikTok has also banned the US president who wanted a ban on the app itself.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-calls-second-impeachment-attempt-greatest-witch-hunt-in-history-356318">Trump calls second impeachment attempt 'greatest witch-hunt in history'</a>

The internet has turned on Donald Trump, and the medium that once celebrated him has now dumped him. Trump can't even go to Parler - a mash-up of Twitter and Instagram which is largely considered a right-wing social media application.

It has been banned by Apple, Google and Amazon, denying the platform any internet presence. The unfathomable violence that took place at US Capitol cannot be defended, but Big Tech has taken the route of censorship. They can silence an elected president, and can also shutdown an app.

Should Big Tech have such superpowers? &nbsp;

Private companies with unchecked power have the possibility of becoming bigger than law itself, and world leaders have woken up to this reality.

Angela Merkel’s spokesperson has issued a statement, claiming that Twitter’s ban on Trump is “problematic”. Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has slammed the ban too, calling it a “bad sign”. Nikki Haley, the former US Ambassador to the UN compared the ban to political censorship in China. Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny called it "an unacceptable act of censorship". British Health Secretary Matt Hancock believes it’s time to regulate social media companies.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/twitter-suspends-70000-qanon-related-accounts-trump-supporters-plan-flop-protest-356161" hreflang="en">Twitter suspends 70,000 QAnon-related accounts; Trump supporters plan 'flop' protest</a>

Twitter still stands by on its ban on Trump. Now, Facebook says the ban on Trump is indefinite.

“No plans to lift it right now, but indefinite, at least through the transition, we've been very clear. There's obviously so much happening and this is such a big step. We will definitely let people know and be very transparent about any changes to that”, said Sheryl Sandberg, the Chief Operating Officer at Facebook.

“This shows that even the president is not above the policies we have”, Sandberg added.

Big Tech is relentless, setting the rules of the game, with its decisions deemed final. From the president of a country, to an average user, a handful of tech giants can dictate the terms.

In the past week, “Big Tech” - applications like Facebook, Google, Instagram, Twitter, and others have taken unprecedented decisions, like booting US President Trump out of their platforms.

In the past week, “Big Tech” - applications like Facebook, Google, Instagram, Twitter, and others have taken unprecedented decisions, like booting US President Trump out of their platforms. By next week, Donald Trump is also slated to leave the presidential office, but for now he remains the world’s most powerful leader. 12 technology companies have either banned Donald Trump, or restricted him in the aftermath of the violence which led to five deaths in the US Capitol last week. Donald Trump can no longer update his status on Facebook, or Tweet. He is also banned from Google, Instagram, Snapchat, YouTube, and Twitch. In addition, TikTok has also banned the US president who wanted a ban on the app itself. Also read: Trump calls second impeachment attempt 'greatest witch-hunt in history' The internet has turned on Donald Trump, and the medium that once celebrated him has now dumped him. Trump can't even go to Parler - a mash-up of Twitter and Instagram which is largely considered a right-wing social media application. It has been banned by Apple, Google and Amazon, denying the platform any internet presence. The unfathomable violence that took place at US Capitol cannot be defended, but Big Tech has taken the route of censorship. They can silence an elected president, and can also shutdown an app. Should Big Tech have such superpowers? Private companies with unchecked power have the possibility of becoming bigger than law itself, and world leaders have woken up to this reality. Angela Merkel’s spokesperson has issued a statement, claiming that Twitter’s ban on Trump is “problematic”. Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has slammed the ban too, calling it a “bad sign”. Nikki Haley, the former US Ambassador to the UN compared the ban to political censorship in China. Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny called it "an unacceptable act of censorship". British Health Secretary Matt Hancock believes it’s time to regulate social media companies. Also read: Twitter suspends 70,000 QAnon-related accounts; Trump supporters plan 'flop' protest Twitter still stands by on its ban on Trump. Now, Facebook says the ban on Trump is indefinite. “No plans to lift it right now, but indefinite, at least through the transition, we've been very clear. There's obviously so much happening and this is such a big step. We will definitely let people know and be very transparent about any changes to that”, said Sheryl Sandberg, the Chief Operating Officer at Facebook. “This shows that even the president is not above the policies we have”, Sandberg added. Big Tech is relentless, setting the rules of the game, with its decisions deemed final. From the president of a country, to an average user, a handful of tech giants can dictate the terms.

Big Tech's ban on Donald Trump sparks debate about power wielded by companies

Few thousand engineers working in social media companies make decisions that impact billions of users. Some US Lawmakers say - big tech companies have too much power and they must be broken up. Palki Sharma Upadhyay tells you major tech companies are the new monopolies.

Gravitas: Why the monopoly of big tech needs to be broken

big-tech-giants

Big Tech Giants, News on Big Tech Giants, stories on Big Tech Giants, articles on Big Tech Giants, Big Tech Giants stories at Wion, Big Tech Giants news, Big Tech Giants latest news

big tech-giants